4 ms·
> > we are still in the range of natural variability > And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you? Not more comfortable, but perhaps
by danjayh 11y ago
> > we are still in the range of natural variability
> And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you?
Not more comfortable, but perhaps also not something for which we should immediately point the finger at CO2 emissions. I think a more important step for California is to re-asses its priorities for water use. The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. In my area, the climate isn't quite as nice, but I can dig a 10ft deep hole in my horse pasture and it'll turn into a nice pond. No, you can't grow almonds and certain other trendy foods in the midwest ... but you can grow crops that will adequately feed the populace, and it's a far more ecologically responsible place to farm. We grow tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, strawberries, broccoli, green beans, blackberries, corn, and a few other things in our garden and most years I don't need to give it a drop of water from a hose. I've actually had to put a good deal of time, effort, and money into managing the water that runs off of our land (we have ~11 acres that all slope toward our house). The commercial corn field across the street has no irrigation system, at all. Although some farmers do it, watering with groundwater here is definitely the exception and not the norm.
... now if only the competition for software engineers were a bit more intense ... I blame the damn snow :).
- thaumaturgy 11y agoNo offense intended, and I'm not being accusatory, but: > The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. This is the sort of statement I was talking about being frustrated with earlier. Given the overall growing conditions in California, it's insane not to farm as much of it as is practical. The water problem in California is complicated and multi-faceted, and it is not entirely the responsibility of agriculture to solve it. (Which isn't to say that they can't do a lot to help, either.)
- DanBC 11y agoWater - and the lack of water - is a part of the overall growing conditions in California. We know that California has droughts and that those droughts can last many years. (50 year, 80 year droughts are not unknown). Given that it is weird to allow agricultural water use without strict controls, realistic pricing, and beeter storage.
- thaumaturgy 11y agoNot exactly. I mean, you're not really wrong, but you underestimate the severity of the current conditions. Here's one of my favorite articles on that: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-drought-repeats.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-histor... (also: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ingram-california-drought-20140203-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ingram-california...) The trend right now is drier than anything else in the last thousand years. If this were merely another instance of the 1980's drought, we'd all be coping more or less OK. But, it's drier than that and we've added a lot of population since then and, as you point out, no additional water storage.